DADvocate

During August and September, 1978, I made a solo motorcycle ride from Knoxville, TN to San Francisco and back. This was the first time I had been west of Oklahoma or Texas. It's a trip I believe everyone should make by car or motorcycle. Just to learn the meaning of the word "continent" if nothing else.

As Knoxville ranks as one of the wetter places in the eastern United States, I was struck by how arid are most of the regions west of the Mississippi River. When I cross the Pecos River, which I had "seen" in movies and read about in Wild West stories, no water flowed at all. A few puddles were visible and that was all.

I camped just west of Flagstaff, AZ. A six to eight inch thick bed of pine needles padded the floor under my tent. I remember thinking that in the event of a fire the place would go up like a tinder box.

Riding up the Pacific Coast Hwy, Hwy. 1, from Cambria for San Francisco, I saw numerous spots where wild fires had burned the year before. At one stop a local, originally from Cookeville, TN, described how the dry grasses and under brush provided near perfect fuel for fires.

Southern California also suffers from a drastic water shortage. It is so dry that it must import drinking water from hundreds of mils away. Residential developments continue to encroach further and further into the areas of dry grass and under brush. No one should be surprised that this area is suffering from catastrophic fires.

But what do we hear? An NBC analyst blaming the fires on global warming. Incendiary expert and U.S. Senator Harry Reid claims global warming responsible for California fires.

My personal favorite is the assertion that greater rainfall due to global warming will increase wildfires.

Foreman cautioned viewers that, “greater periods of rain” that fuel “increased vegetation growth” over the next century may provide a “potential link between these fires and global warming.”

He then pointed to a map showing “plant growth is expected to double or even triple as a result of greater periods of rain, driven by climate change.”

For starters, “greater periods of rain” that fuel “increased vegetation growth” sounds like good news. More drinking water, improved crop yields, etc. But, to ask the more obvious, if increased vegetation growth caused by greater periods of rain will increase the severity and number of wildfires how come the Brazilian rain forest or those in other places around the globe don't suffer horrific fires on a regular basis??

Thankfully, there are a few cooler (pun intended) heads out there. And, arson is responsible for some of the present fires. California and other parts of the western U.S. including Alaska have a long history (Time, Monday, Aug. 22, 1977 - Partly mentions fires of which I saw the damage in 1978. Alaskan fires in 1977 covered 1.6 million acres.) of wild fires.

I just hate the stupidity of the global warming alarmists. It's difficult to maintain an intelligent discussion and investigation into humanity's impact on our environment with the constant frantic screaming of the Chicken Littles.

Think that the liberal unbias media gave you the straight story on the Jena 6? Think again.

About a month ago, I blogged regarding the left's hypocrisy and the Jena 6. Now we have further, in-depth proof of the false myths pushed on us by the media regarding the Jena 6 from the Christian Science Monitor.

There's just one problem: The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice.

---

The real story of Jena and the Jena 6 is quite different from what the national media presented. It's time to set the record straight.

Read the whole piece by piece dissection of the liberal mythology of the Jena 6 written by Craig Franklin a local journalist and resident of Jena, LA.

Do you think we'll hear many lefties admitting their mistake? Don't hold your breath. The silence from Durham is deafening.

Hat tip to Instapundit

The other day my son asked me a question I never thought I'd hear, "What are Kentucky and Cincinnati ranked?" And, he was talking about football!

Today Kentucky played number one ranked LSU. I gave the odds of Kentucky winning as slim and none. Slim and none won.

I'm not a big Kentucky fan, but living up in the Maysville, KY area, I root for them when they're not playing Tennessee. I think it's pretty cool they finally have a good team.

One question Kentucky's success has brought up for me is the role of Randy Sanders, the Kentucky quarterback coach. Sanders was fired a couple of years ago as offensive coordinator at Tennessee. I was probably as critical of him as anyone. At one point I sent Phil Fulmer an email stating that Tennessee would never rise above the doldrums they were in as long as Randy Sanders was offensive coordinator.

Maybe I was wrong.

Sanders was the quarterback coach for the little known Peyton Manning. Sanders also coached Tennessee's quarterbacks during their last national championship season. A season in which he moved up to offensive coordinator just before the bowl game.

Maybe Sanders doesn't what it takes to be an offensive coordinator or head coach. Maybe Sanders is just one helluva quarterback coach. Andre Woodson, quarterback for Kentucky, has truly blossomed under Sanders' tutelage. Or, maybe Sanders does have what it takes to be an offensive coordinator or head coach and Phil Fulmer's style as a head coach held Sanders back. Tennessee certainly hasn't made any great improvements since Sanders left. But, Kentucky has since Sanders arrived there.

I hope someone gives Sanders another shot at offensive coordinator or a head coaching position just to answer my question. And, Sanders deserves another chance.

I came across this today at one of the more vitriolic, hate filled, Lefty blogs.

The left generally seeks a society with widespread middle class prosperity, where all people have access to the good life, defined as having roughly these things:

* Decent housing with some privacy.
* Education.
* Useful employment with a fair wage.
* Health care.
* Enough free time to pursue some pleasures in life and have a family life.
* The ability to retire.
* The right to free and equal participation in society.
* The right to self-determination.

Actually, it is quite nice but the context is that conservatives are against all those things. I thought I better clear a few things up.

Decent housing with some privacy. - I prefer complete privacy. Police going up and down the streets with thermal imaging and listening devices is unacceptable, as are peeping Toms.
Education. - And not indoctrination.
Useful employment with a fair wage. - How is a "fair wage" determined? If you don't think your wages are fair, you can always find another job. Get a better "education" if needed.
Health care. - I am all for paying for the health care of everyone providing they are Christian Scientists or are willing to accept treatment from an aboriginal shaman.
Enough free time to pursue some pleasures in life and have a family life. - It's time to stop pursuing pleasures and have a little fun.
The ability to retire. - I retire every night around 10:30 - 11:00 PM.
The right to free and equal participation in society. - What the hell does this even mean? Most people don't want to participate anyway. They'd rather be watching "Dancing with the Stars" or some other drivel. Plus, if we're going to have "free and equal", someone needs to be buying me a new computer and a flat screen TV real soon.
The right to self-determination. - Does this include the right to determine who provides you health care coverage, medical treatment, etc? Just asking.

I especially love the T-shirt ad that says "When you are right you cannot be too radical." Dangerous philosophy. It's too easy for many to believe they are "right." The most murderous regimes of the 20th century originated as left wing movements, Nazis, Stalin, Mao, and so on.

Seeing a little of Mrs. Clinton on Keith Olberman tonight, I had to write this post concerning Halsey and Bonnie Frost and taxpayer subsidized health care. Halsey and Bonnie, with the blessing of the Democrats, trotted their son, Graeme, to read a statement to support the SCHIP health care bill.

While the story of Graeme and his sister, Gemme, is heart rending, the story of their parents is of two parents who failed, apparently refused, to do what is necessary to insure their children have ready access to needed health care and medical services when ever needed. It is a story of two parents who would rather neglect this aspect of their children's needs, and every child needs medical care at some point.

The Frosts earn "between $45,000 and $50,000 a year." according to the Baltimore Sun story linked to above. My income falls in the same range but neither of them work full-time like I do. The Frost's assets in the form of their house and other real estate is many times greater than mine. (I bought my house for $78,000 two and a half years ago and have virtually no equity.)

The Frosts can't afford health insurance. I provide health insurance for my children through my work which makes it more affordable. Certainly, one of the Frosts could work full-time for benefits if they wished. No where could I find a mention that they were handicapped or otherwise unable to work full-time. They simply choose not to.

When still married, my ex-wife and her sister owned a home health care business. The Frosts remind me of a woman that worked for my ex-wife, Nancy. Nancy had worked full-time and received company paid health insurance. When Nancy decided she wanted to work part-time she asked if she could continue to receive health insurance coverage.

Due to tax regulations, any benefit that an employee receives for which all employees are not eligible is considered taxable income. To satisfy this, Nancy received a raise to cover the cost of the insurance and related costs.

Being a newly wed at the time, Nancy soon became pregnant. (Her and her husband's combined income was probably no more than the Frost's.) When her daughter was born the daughter had severe lesions in the brain. The doctor told Nancy's husband not to expect his daughter to be alive the next day. The baby was sent to Cincinnati Children's Hospital, one of the best.

Miraculously, the baby was still alive the next day and ended up spending 3 months in the hospital before being released. Medical bills were through the roof. But because this young couple in their mid-twenties exercised responsible parenting from before their child's birth, their out of pocket expenses were easily managed.

Because young brains can often adapt, Nancy's daughter was pronounced a "normal" child by the age of 2. Now, at about 15 years old, the daughter plays basketball, other sports, does well in school and is normal in every way.

I could go on with numerous anecdotes about parents that love their kids enough to actually put forth the effort and take the responsibility to make sure their kids get the care they need when they need it. But, the Democrats saw fit to bring forth parents that, by every account I've read, some sympathetic to the Frosts and some not, have low motivation, under achieve and aren't willing to sacrifice, sweat, and bleed to make sure their children have what they need.

The one thing kids need most is not fancy schools, taxpayer subsidized health care, or welfare programs expanding into the middle class. What kids need are parents that love and care for them. When kids see you working, sacrificing, struggling, and sweating for them, they know you love them. They know you care for them. That's not what they see when they see you whining that taxpayers should pay your doctor bills because you don't want to work that hard or long.

A commenter here mentions the "the infantilization of the populace..." Halsey and Bonnie Frost provide a good example of two adults with the Peter Pan Syndrome refusing to accept adult responsibilities and passing the responsibilities off to society. The left is so desperate they will latch onto anything to gain greater power.

Which brings me back to Mrs. Clinton who said she strongly disapproved of the attacks on the Frosts. For beginners, it was stupid to bring forth the Frosts as an example. I suppose the left believes they should be able to display anyone for a cause and we all should all bow down in praise without a moment of thought.

I don't trust the government to provide although Ohio Senator Brown told me he does in an email.

I support legislation that would establish a single payer coverage system modeled after Medicare. This popular public program currently provides health coverage to all seniors and has significantly lower administrative costs than private health insurance. Whether the measure is cost, access, or quality, our nation would be better off establishing a single payer system such as Medicare than continuing to rely on an uneven patchwork of public and private health insurance systems.

If we move towards Medicare for all will we still have the access and quality we have now? Canadians don't. In my observation there is nothing the government can't make worse.

How long will it take before the government administered, taxpayer funded health care system becomes a network for the government to spy on us. Doctors will interrogate kids to uncover our use of alcohol, tobacco, drugs and other undesirable activities. How long will it take them to analyze our blood samples for drugs, nicotine, etc. All this leftist "compassion" keeps bringing us closer and closer to a totalitarian police state.

Mrs. Clinton wants a plan that eliminates the Bush tax cuts thus increasing costs for everyone.

To help pay for the plan, Clinton would also eliminate the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 and limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000.

Will we really save money or just re-arrange the costs? Why won't any of these power mongers endorse tax deductions for all health care costs? Is it because they want control and power? Do you want to be under their thumb? Remember, with a "single payer coverage system" you can't switch insurance companies for better service or coverage. You're stuck with what the power mongers will give you. You can bet they will look after themselves the same way they did with Social Security. They don't have it. They have something better for themselves.

It's time for more adults to become adults and take responsibility for themselves and their children, if any. Remember Aesop's Fable of the dog and the wolf - Moral: Better starve free than be a fat slave.

Posting aerial views on the Internet to intimidate someone seems to be the rage. As well as this fellow posting (and then removing) Michelle Malkin's address and an aerial view of her house, according to Keith Olberman someone posted an aerial view and the address of the Frost family discussed by Malkin and others.

Olberman ranted about the posting of the Frost's family info, I didn't hear a word about Malkin from him however. If you're going to be outraged be don't be selective as to the political affiliation of the "victim," be outraged about all of it. What a hypocrite.

Anyway, just to join the crowd and show my extreme courage, here is an aerial view of my house. It's down there somewhere. I promise.

G. M. Roper posted a Michael Ramirez cartoon portraying the left's attack on General Patraeus and Rush Limbaugh. Then it struck me, again. The left has no foundation on which to stand so they resort to the infantile name calling and insults that I thought I left behind in kindergarten.

All the personal attacks against Patraeus, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bush, Cheney, et al amount to no more than a 5 year old with a thesaurus call them "poopy heads" in slightly bigger words. That's right, coming up with a clever, adolescent name like "Betrayus" makes you look like the childish buffoon you are. Yes, the left's reality based cadre live in a reality that most of us left when we entered junior high.

When you have a rational foundation for your beliefs, you don't have to resort to such infantile actions.

In a continuing theme of happy men, a study at the University of California, Davis:

found females more likely think negative events predict future events and this may explain why women perceive more risk and have more anxiety.

The study, published in Child Development, found that children and adults believe negative past events forecast negative future events, however, young girls and women more likely to believe negative past events predict future harm, compared to males.

One of the researchers added:

"These results are significant because they reveal that knowledge about the impact of past-to-future thinking on emotions and behaviors develops during the preschool years," Lagattuta said in a statement.

Indeed that the emotions and behaviors are apparent at such an early age that it would be worthwhile to investigate whether or not the behaviors are genetic.

I also wonder if this difference in anxiety and perception between males and females may be perceived by females as males "not caring" when the male is not as concerned about a possible event as the female. Yet, the difference is simply due to a fundamental difference in the way males and females perceive and anticipate certain events.

Some women may not like the results of this study, but I'm not worried about that.

:-)